Moral dilemma for Washington Post readers who canceled subscriptions but cant live without Amazon

Washington Post readers boycotting the paper after owner Jeff Bezos refused to make a presidential endorsement admit theyre struggling to give up Amazon.  

More than 200,000 WaPo readers - out of 2.5 million - have so far ended their subscriptions, but some are admitting its harder to give up the convenience of Bezos far more lucrative online shopping behemoth.

Liberal author Joan Walsh took to X to proudly declare her fury over the non-endorsement, writing: I just canceled my subscription to @washingtonpost. You should too. 

But asked in her replies she would cancel her Amazon subscription, Walsh immediately compromised her stance, writing: Much harder but considering... 

Some Washington Post readers like author Joan Walsh, who cancelled their subscriptions after the paper decided not to endorse Kamala Harris, are having trouble also boycotting Amazon

Liberal author Joan Walsh was one of the X users who admitted that while she was able to let go of her WaPo subscription, she was keeping her Amazon account

X user Liz Calloway shared an image of her Post subscription cancellation while adding, If I were a better person I would cancel my Amazon Prime membership, too.

X user Liz Callaway shared an image of her Post subscription cancellation while adding, If I were a better person I would cancel my Amazon Prime membership, too. 

Another added: I did cancel my longtime WaPo subscription, and Im sourcing the things I want from Amazon from other places. Its hard, Ill admit. 

Some Bezos critics argued that they canceled the Post because it stopped doing its job to inform, while Amazon is still doing what its supposed to.

One X user wrote: I didnt cancel Amazon Prime because thats still a service that delivers on its promises. 

The Washington Post said Friday it would not endorse a candidate for president in this year’s tightly contested race and would avoid doing so in the future.

The papers page editor David Shipley had already approved an endorsement of Harris and had reportedly told colleagues that it was being reviewed by the papers owner Bezos, according to NPR.

Some Bezos critics argued that they canceled the Post because it stopped doing its job to inform, while Amazon is still doing what its supposed to.

The announcement marks the first time in 36 years that the left-leaning paper has decided to not make a presidential endorsement. 

Columnist Robert Kagan, a conservative Trump critic, resigned from his position in the editorial board after the decision emerged. 

In an article posted on the front of its website, the Post — reporting on its own inner workings — also quoted unidentified sources within the publication as saying that an endorsement of Kamala Harris over Donald Trump had been written but not published. 

Those sources told the Post reporters that Bezos made the decision.

The Post’s publisher, Will Lewis, wrote in a column that the decision was actually a return to a tradition the paper had years ago of not endorsing candidates. He said it reflected the paper’s faith in our readers ability to make up their own minds.

The page editor had reportedly told colleagues that it was being reviewed by the papers owner Jeff Bezos. The Post itself has reported that it was Bezos who made the decision to not endorse a presidential candidate

Columnist Robert Kagan, a conservative Trump critic, resigned from his position in the editorial board after the decision emerged

The post began endorsing presidential candidates in 1976 after it broke the Watergate scandal and publicly backed Democrat Jimmy Carter - for understandable reasons at the time, the paper said.

However, it declined to make an endorsement in 1988 between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.

All of its endorsements since Carter have been Democrats.

The Post’s move come the same week that the Los Angeles Times announced a similar decision, which triggered the resignations of its editorial page editor and two other members of the editorial board. 

Los Angeles Times editors were asked to fairly analyze both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, but chose to say nothing instead, according to the papers owner Dr Pat Soon-Shiong

In that instance, the Times’ owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, insisted he had not censored the editorial board, which had planned to endorse Harris.

As an owner, I’m on the editorial board and I shared with our editors that maybe this year we have a column, a page, two pages, if we want, of all the pros and all the cons and let the readers decide, Soon-Shiong said in an interview Thursday with Spectrum News. He said he feared endorsing a candidate would add to the country’s division.

Mariel Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review in an interview that she resigned because the Times was remaining silent on the contest in “dangerous times.”

I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent, Garza said. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.